The first open debate between representatives of political parties since the 2014 coup took place last week at a forum in Bangkok. It pitted veteran politicians against young bloods entering politics for the first time. Even though the event was more like a talk show and somewhat superficial, it did set the tone for the kind of politics we could expect leading to a general election next year.
Anutin Charnvirakul, ex-cabinet minister and leader of the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), took a safe road by expressing no clear political position. BJT is a medium-sized party expecting to win 30-40 seats in the election, and Mr Anutin is the type of politician who plays the political numbers game. His strategy is to use the seats he gained as leverage in negotiations to be a partner in a next government coalition.
Suranand Vejjajiva was secretary-general to the prime minister during the Yingluck Shinawatra government and is now a political analyst.
As his party's objective is to always be part of any government, Mr Anutin would not offend anyone. Although he did try to distance himself from the military during the debate, it was not convincing enough, especially after the exposure of a picture of him and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha on a recent trip abroad. The current military regime will definitely attempt to manipulate the political process and Mr Anutin knows full well he may have to cater to them. But he also has his options open to join other political parties with more democratic leanings -- all up to the outcome of the election.
For the Pheu Thai Party, senior politician Sudarat Keyuraphan showed up. This essentially confirms the rumour that she received a green light to lead the party into the next election from Thaksin Shinawatra, who has lived in self-imposed exile but remained the party's de facto leader. However, her performance at the debate was disappointing. It was different from her top form when she was the darling of Bangkokians under the now-defunct Palang Dharma Party and the now-dissolved Thai Rak Thai Party of the past two decades.
Khunying Sudarat is caught in the past and still forced to explain the "Thaksin regime". She could not present a forward-looking position for the party. This may not be entirely her fault as Pheu Thai as a whole is currently locked into this trap.
One of course cannot count Pheu Thai out. It remains the largest political party, expecting to win the numbers game with 200-plus seats from the North and Northeast regions. And Thaksin is the master of political marketing and running election campaigns.
Pheu Thai just needs to do more homework. And it has better watch its back. As a new generation of personalities, Pheu Thai is at risk of losing the leadership of the progressive platforms and even its mantle as a defender of democracy.
This was why the Democrat Party was smarter in sending its youngest new recruit to the debate -- Parit Wacharasindhu, a nephew of party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva (and that makes Mr Parit my nephew too). Articulate and sharp, he is Mr Abhisit's clone without the political baggage. He avoided questions about the political conflicts of the past, saying he was not there and not part of it. He only emphasised that he wanted to take the Democrats forward into the future.
The Democrat Party is an expert at this kind of political reinvention. Traditionally, the Democrats are conservatives catering to the elites and technocrats to sustain the political power structure. But when elections are on the horizon, their language will turn more democratic. Critics call it the party that "takes credit for the good and blames others for the bad".
But the Democrats and Mr Abhisit cannot avoid the political burden of the past, especially from the military crackdown on the red-shirt protest in 2010, which resulted in more than a hundred deaths. In addition, many Democrat politicians participated in the People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) protests against the elected government of then-prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, which led to the 2014 coup.
The Democrats are thus also caught in the past. As long as there is no political or legal accountability, they will not be able to present a credible way forward. Using a pretty face with good oratorical skills may not be enough.
Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, founder of the Future Forward Party, is the only one without a political past. And for a novice in a political debate forum, he looked comfortable and handled the questions well. He was not afraid to speak out even though his comments may have raised some eyebrows. He said clearly he wanted to see change occur through democratic processes.
Mr Thanathorn will have to work hard to translate his ideas into a political party platform and a vision of how he will lead the country. He also has to develop a clear message balancing his image as a capitalist businessman and his democratic ideals. Most importantly, he has to distinguish himself from Thaksin, who launched his political career in a similar manner. There is a long road ahead, but Mr Thanathorn is a man to watch.
The first political debate last week set the opening stage for the political show. But the real issue was not presented on stage. Thammasat University law lecturer Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, another founder of the Future Forward Party, talked on a sidelines of the event revealing his six-point agenda for change. These points instantly raised a furore among the conservatives.
His points include calls to amend the charter, another referendum and termination of Section 279 of the constitution, which guarantees the legality of all announcements and orders of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO). He also proposed a review, amendments to or nullification of all announcements and orders of the NCPO.
He also wants a section added to the charter that would give Thai citizens the right and duty to resist coups and power usurpation by the people. His other points include a change to the constitution to criminalise coupmakers and a review of all legislative bills passed by the National Legislative Assembly.
This is a head-on attack on the raison d'être of the NCPO, which is a coalition of the military, technocrats, conservative elites and large businesses. The technocratic regime has skewed the democratic process of this country since the Siamese Revolution of 1932. The military has been used as a tool of force against democratic governments. In this way, the elites protect their interests without respect for the voice of the people expressed through democratic processes.
It is true that democracy has its problems, and at times elected politicians have abused their power, but it should not be an excuse for the military to overthrow elected governments.
Mr Piyabutr's proposals must not be taken lightly. They should fuel debate for the future of this country.